tv [untitled] October 11, 2012 4:00pm-4:30pm PDT
needs associated with growth, as well as the needs that we have today even without the growth; as we developed sftp, i want to urge you to think about what we need to do differently to achieve these goals, not just prevent conditions from getting worse. to achieve the ambitious goals that we have about them beyond just maintaining our performance the way this. for instant we want to thing about leveraging private sector investment in transportation. someone mentioned i think the investments that businesses are making increasingly into providing transportation services for their employees for the travel market that are not well served by transit, or where the demands for
transit exceed the levels of service. reallocating the right-of-way; someone talked about the right-of-way how much do we need to doto meet our goals? we did look at what it would take to meet san francisco's ambitious goals related to the transportation system; we looked at how do we raise the level of repair of our system rather than just maintaining it as it is into the future? how do we achieve our transit first vision, and some fo the city's -- poor people choose transit or bicycling for their transit.as an example of the
not keep up with the system we have today. we have about 9.5 billion committed to projects that are already underway, prioritized in the rtp; these are commitments that are significant improvement in include projects in the construction such as presidio parkway in the central subway, also the downtown extension of caltrans, caltrain electrification as part of the package. there remains a little over this 3 billion in discretionary funds that we need to spread over other needs; new operations, raising the level of repair,
programs. by programs i mean day-to-day types of transportation investments that the public is really interesting in when we do a call for projects; every one of two is a response to the call such as more safety, more crosswalks, countdown signals or expansion projects. you mentioned, is the next generation of transit expansion, does it involve subways? it could be a way to prioritize the remaining 3 billion. where we are in sftp develop analysis having completed a revenue estimate, and the calls for project, we have a sense of the needs both in
operations and maintenance, in programs, and in capital projects. we have also conducted a san francisco's pacific project evaluationall of that will come together this fall in some draft financially-constrained sftp scenarios, but also scenarios that would look at what the vision would be for additional investment that is beyond existing revenue should they become available. we are about to enter into the face of public outreach, with the goal of bringing sftp to the board for adoption in the spring in parallel with that
option of the sftp at the regional level. we want to hear from you as to how that 3.1 billion should they prioritize: operations and maintenance, programs, new projects, what kind of projects? wone tool that i would like to share with you are anyone watching is an online budgeting game. the transportation budget czar for the day. visit www.sftp.org/mybudget. this is an example of what the page looks like. you have a gauge that shows a much money you have to work with;
you choices here, about investing and walking and traffic calming; should investment in this type of program be increased? should stay the same? it counts down as you make tough decisions about what to spend on, and what you can afford. please, do go ahead and visit sf tpa.org/mybudget there other ways to get involved. we hope that you will fill it out and look forward to come back to you in future months with some of the results, and more updates as we developed these investments in areas. thank you. >> is there any public comment
on this item? none. commissioner borden. >> could you put the slide back up of the various websites? tell me what you are doing with his input? is it something for later? >> here are the website and the phone number that you can call. yes, all of the information that people submit will come to the transportation authority for us to analyze and look at the range of priorities and trends; this input will be advisory to us as we develop possible investment scenarios, both financially constrained as well as
potential vision scenarios; what are users interested in? the other way that we are reaching out to people, traditional ways, reaching out to neighborhood organizations, the board members, organizations and constituents, going to festivals each district, community events, as well as through online. >> people who deal with muni and people who deal with the ta; everybody knows muni, not everybody knows the ta. how are you working with them? >> we will be going to the ta
board a making presentations. we have been working with mta's public city staff to get advertisements onto muni shelters; and onto buses. this week we started doing outreach in buses throughout the city itself, working through muni and mta's sort of outreach projects as well. >> i'm curious about how you will synthesize all of this information. and understand how this template will be used. >> you recall how hard it was in the six week period [indiscernible], i don't underestimate it at all;
we do welcome the public input of how we can do this outreach, using multiple languages, electronic and nonelectronic means, bus cards, getting out the community events. funding is a big issue. financial constraint is a reality. by no means is a constraint as in our vision or in what is possible especially when we advocate with the other three big cities, the other transit properties that have major infrastructure and major needs, and operating needs. it takes a lot of education, thoughtful conversation; people don't understand of the traditional sources of funding like a gas taxare not a sustainable source, and bankrupted the rational level; we need to have a discussion that is difficult to do, both locally and the national level.
there are other policy tools that we can use to enhance our ability to fund things or deliver projects more efficiently; we look to ourselves and the agency capacity to deliver things most efficiently and stretch each dollar to do more. the city has already been innovating in these areas, especially that part during the private sector and with individual users and travelers. i think that we can get more out of the available resources; it's a big conversation to have a very much look forward to your ideas for how best to have this conversation. >> focus a lot on that issue because a lot of people will be excited to create new expansion projects; the real creativity and what we really need thoughts around is how do you help with existing maintenance and operation to make it more efficient, and take care of
the things that you need to do more with less. to the extent of the website can get people to think and to those areas i think that is where the greater creativity challenge is needed a lot of us can come in with great pie-in-the-sky expansion projects. in terms of synthesizing the input the best that you can and of transparency that people know create categories of input and circulating them out there so people could have and see their input in a certain way. my concern is you gather a lot of input, people spend time coming up with ideas and if you like% >> we are doing our best to show people last year what would it with that; we have fantastic citizens advisory committee. one of the members is a teacher and she's using this budget game is a toolas an exercise;
we can demonstrate to people how their input is affecting the policymaking process. we will try to continue to do that. >> going back to the earlier comment about we would love to work together with the ta and mta to talk about honestly the decision that we make is about planning and development, but understanding based upon our growthhow you are facing in this capitation plan [indiscernible] >> we will work on that then, thank you. >> commissioner antonini.>>
thank you we deal with this chicken and egg situation regarding long-term planning. do we make the plants and then try to get the funding secondary? do we see the funding and then make a plan? you have to have a carrot out there. when you put a carrot people by in. having lived through the development of bart, people were enthusiastic and bond measures were passed, and three county sign in to the visionit was a three-hour trip to san francisco and now it is a 41-min. trip from dublin to montgomery street. one of the things that we need to do inside of san francisco it's some sort of either bart
or muni line to the northwest part of san francisco. not many people are enthusiastic about packing up to a 38 bus. that's not a pleasant trip. rather than spending years and years and bus rapid transit, we need to develop a visionary plan and work with all of the agencies and get it done even if the case in a few more years, it is better to have something good. the central subway is a start. the downtown caltrain extension is another start. another thought that comes to mind is, i hope it is a reality by 2018, or whenever we hope to have the extension, using some of those lines also for shorter trains; it could serve places like -- visitation or brisbane,
it could go down the peninsula, eventually down the state. we can learn from the past; ancestors used topography by boring tunnels underneath hills; you don't disrupted infrastructure. relocating utility lines, they would write underneath twin peaks where there is nothing. instead of thinkingbut we have to put online under geary, we can put it under where nothing runs.
they're spending money to have bart extent the san jose but we have more ridership in san francisco and we have a lot of underserved areas; i alluded to the fact that the -- really needs to connect that up for the tunnel that runs from market street to the sunset tunnel and not have these trains come out and inched their way along debose and be able to come out and go into the tunnel and get to the sunset district a lot quicker than they do not. that could be something that could be planned out relatively easily.. >> thank you for the synthetic ideaswe do need to repair our next -- particularly with bart. the next rtp we will be better prepared. >> i would ride bart from out
there but not nearly as many as do from the richmond district. >> i hope that -- will make it mandatory that all commissioners fill out this form highlighting the results; and as a follow-up to commissioner antonini, i will recommend a bart spur to treasure island be considered immediately and any future competition investments go to the serious that have the highest amount of -- there are quite a few of them, underserved core doors and areas in the city. although we are targeting densification in those areas, transportation is far behind;
the planning commission is to be proactively supporting filling up this outreach form. >> you heard from commissioner moore, you can go online to participate. thank you to the staff for putting this together and giving us an update. i will be stating the obvious this is an integral part of the next stage in seven cisco as we talk about all the stuff that we are building above ground, and some below. the transportation infrastructure is really what will make this a better city 30 years from now. i appreciate all the work, and i look forward to the next update. thank you. >> thank you commissioners your non-item number 10, case 2012.0110e, 2175 market sr., an appeal of a preliminary negativemitigated declaration.
>> i am don lewis from the planning stuff; joining me is joy navarrette; data before is an appeal to a negative mitigated declaration, demolition of an existing gas station at the south is corner of market and 15th street in the construction of the development of 88 units and retail units and 44 parking spaces located in an underground parking garage. should have a package concerning an executive summary, a draft motion and the response of the appeal letter. the planning department published a focused -- and a cpe on august 25, 2012. the department received an appeal letter; primary issues raised in the appeal letter included concerns about traffic conditions along fifteenth street
and the adequacy of the market and octavia eir. for projects and planning area such as thisthe project proposal is for a review to address the eir. topics for which the eir for the decider significant program level impact are addressed in the cp certificate of termination; if the proposed project will result in a significant impact that you to the project for example, the impact is not identify the significant in the underlining eir, is a separate focus in the eir. the project would have a potential significant, peculiar impact related to hazardous materialsthe plumbing department are very focused
pm&d. the department prepared three documents a pm&d certificate pm&d and -- the market and octavia eir address the future impact; the project is consistent with the eir assumption that anticipates that future projects would add vehicle trips to the intersection. traffic conditions are not considered a particular impact on fifteenth street; the market octvia eir discloses that the consideration. staff believes that no substantial eventshave been presented that would warrant
good afternoon commissioners. the group has appealed the p&md and we have some support from 50 membersyou heard from don lewis that the appeal was denied by the planning department. in that response, the planning department repeatedly claims -- that the significant traffic and transportation impact occurring at the market/sanchez/15th street intersection is been reviewed and understood. this is incorrect. the appeal maintains all merits towards environmental transportation review and the guidelines 1583, in the interest of time
i will focus on the traffic and transportation part, they fall on the sql 1583, section 4. specifically additional environmental reviews if you pre-identify significant effects; as a result new information not known at the time the eir was certified, was determined to have more adverse effects then discussed the prior eir. the impact that were not only made more severe by the 2175 market street project but also by the surrounding projects, furthermore no substantial mitigation has been taken to diminish any of these impacts that were raised. what is the real problem here? the planning department
response is that the issue has been established. that is true. the problem is that the current degradation of traffic conditions at that intersection is independent of any of the market/ocatvia growth. not one of the new development projects is online. how can you blame and effect of events if the development has not happened yet? i am not clear how the response to my peel takes into account future development projects that nobody has moved into yet or not completed. the degradation of traffic and transportation must be for one or more new sources are not covered in the market/octavia eir. we have demonstrated with data
that there is new and substantial information that was not known at the time that the market /octavia eir was certified; these changeshas not been discussed. it is highly probable thatwe have already been degraded to a -- level. as reported by table c2 appendix c, the study identifies this intersection in 2004 as a --. the delay was a high end by the -- definition, even a 10% change in traffic at that intersection in 2004 would have degraded that intersection further. interoperability since 2004, we have not shifted to a -- e intersection, independent of the cumulative environmental
impacts identified by the octavia report that don talked about. the potential means that the degradation to the intersection could lead to a -- which was never addressed by market/octvai. environmental impact statement never addressed the simultaneous development of so many projects and the cumulative effects of the project together: market sanchez and 15th street have two active developments.